Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:15:23 04/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2000 at 22:34:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >On April 23, 2000 at 18:13:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 23, 2000 at 17:15:52, Michael Fuhrmann wrote: >> >>>Why would a program ever underpromote to a rook? Saw Crafty do this recently. >>>(In this particular case, it had no impact on the outcome of the game.) >> >> >>1. it is necessary at times. IE if you promote to queen, you stalemate your >>opponent. if you promote to rook, you can still win without stalemating him. >> >>2. In the case of chess engines, it is pretty common to see this. The most >>common reason is that the =R is not a check, when the =Q is a check, or the >>rook allows fewer checks later in the tree. So by promoting to a rook, it >>avoids some tactic that it really can't avoid... IE this is a horizon effect >>situation.. > >Are there any cases where you would promote to bishop or rook to achieve >stalemate for yourself? (e.g. you are far behind in material (say down two >queens or more), and the only legal move is the pawn promotion or something of >that nature) Sounds hard.. but I'll bet there is a problem composer out there that might construct such a position...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.